I can't believe this is still going on, and that the same fabricated, or obtuse, or intentionally ignorant views are being produced.

Noone says it stops everything.

Noone wants a John Scott.

This one's for LSCII, though - you know what? I'd love a John Kordic on the team. Not a monster like Boogaard or Scott, but a guy the same size whose only real function is to intimidate, and police. I am fully willing to sacrifice one of my fourth line spots for this type of player.

Because I LOVE hockey fights. I LOVE my team having an element that a) prevents some degree of bulls*it and b) provides the ability for retribution if it's not prevented.

It's fun. Hockey is supposed to be fun, and my version of fun includes a John Kordic.

BRING BACK JOHN KORDIC FROM BEYOND.

Click to expand...

I can't believe Herman's Hermts cares about fighting in hockey. Who knew.

They were also players that crossed the line and whose effectiveness was linked to their nastiness,they'd be penalized into oblivion. Can you imagine a Terry O'Reilly that fought twice a year? LB was drafted as a junior Neely,but got suckered into the tough guy role.

Click to expand...

Their nastiness made them better but wasn't the only reason they were effective. Taz would be less effective today for that reason as well as his poor skating. He still could score goals tho. Clark and Tocchet would be less effective as well but still good players. They would all have to play a toned down version to avoid penalties. Kind of pointless to even talk about this.

LB would probably laugh at your suckered into being a tough guy comment. He was an extremely tough guy who didn't have the skill to excel in the NHL. He was a natural fit for the role.

Their nastiness made them better but wasn't the only reason they were effective. Taz would be less effective today for that reason as well as his poor skating. He still could score goals tho. Clark and Tocchet would be less effective as well but still good players. They would all have to play a toned down version to avoid penalties. Kind of pointless to even talk about this.

LB would probably laugh at your suckered into being a tough guy comment. He was an extremely tough guy who didn't have the skill to excel in the NHL. He was a natural fit for the role.

Click to expand...

PRE-DRAFT AWARDS AND HONORS
Sask. AAA All-Star Second Team: 1980-81 (Notre Dame)
Miscellaneous: Rated in The Hockey News draft preview issue as
No. 13 overall prospect and No. 8 WHL prospect for the 1982 NHL draft. ... Missed part of 1980-81 season with broken right wrist, an injury suffered in April 1981. ... Traded by Saskatoon (WHL) to Regina in exchange for Todd Strueby in September 1981. ... Attended Athol Murray College of Notre Dame in Wilcox, Saskatchewan, before entering major junior hockey. ... Tore knee ligaments playing rugby in weeks before 1982 draft, although the injury was unknown to scouts.

During one of Byers callups and after Neely began to blossom it was said the B's thought that Byers would develop into the type of player Neely was in 86-87. I read that Byers had a serious knee injury prior to the draft (unknown to the B's) and also blamed Mike Milbury for forcing him into a fighter role. What a waste.He was a really good prospect coming out of junior - scored 89 points in 58 games his final year in Regina, was selected for Canada's 1984 WJC team, and put up 6 points in 10 games in a callup to Boston in 83-84.He then seemingly --- either by the organization or by himself, got pigeonholed exclusively into the tough guy role. Fighting was obviously his greatest asset, but he wasn't without skills.At the time, he wasn't really a 'goon' prospect at all, and averaged a shade over 150 PIM in his 3 years in the WHL.​

PRE-DRAFT AWARDS AND HONORS
Sask. AAA All-Star Second Team: 1980-81 (Notre Dame)
Miscellaneous: Rated in The Hockey News draft preview issue as
No. 13 overall prospect and No. 8 WHL prospect for the 1982 NHL draft. ... Missed part of 1980-81 season with broken right wrist, an injury suffered in April 1981. ... Traded by Saskatoon (WHL) to Regina in exchange for Todd Strueby in September 1981. ... Attended Athol Murray College of Notre Dame in Wilcox, Saskatchewan, before entering major junior hockey. ... Tore knee ligaments playing rugby in weeks before 1982 draft, although the injury was unknown to scouts.

During one of Byers callups and after Neely began to blossom it was said the B's thought that Byers would develop into the type of player Neely was in 86-87. I read that Byers had a serious knee injury prior to the draft (unknown to the B's) and also blamed Mike Milbury for forcing him into a fighter role. What a waste.He was a really good prospect coming out of junior - scored 89 points in 58 games his final year in Regina, was selected for Canada's 1984 WJC team, and put up 6 points in 10 games in a callup to Boston in 83-84.He then seemingly --- either by the organization or by himself, got pigeonholed exclusively into the tough guy role. Fighting was obviously his greatest asset, but he wasn't without skills.At the time, he wasn't really a 'goon' prospect at all, and averaged a shade over 150 PIM in his 3 years in the WHL.​

Click to expand...

I disagree with the poster you were responding to with this, as well - I think, back then anyway, that there were next to zero 'tough guys' that were without skill. Somewhere along the way we lost our way and started drafting the Peter Worrell's of the world, but in the day, they were likely by and large skilled players that evolved into the role.

I disagree with the poster you were responding to with this, as well - I think, back then anyway, that there were next to zero 'tough guys' that were without skill. Somewhere along the way we lost our way and started drafting the Peter Worrell's of the world, but in the day, they were likely by and large skilled players that evolved into the role.

Click to expand...

No question- if you listen to some of the old enforcer/fighter guys, they were good players but in a smaller league with so many fewer roster spots, many of them had to play that role to stay in the league. Once expansion went crazy, then there was more room for the Worrell's and Belanger types.

No question- if you listen to some of the old enforcer/fighter guys, they were good players but in a smaller league with so many fewer roster spots, many of them had to play that role to stay in the league. Once expansion went crazy, then there was more room for the Worrell's and Belanger types.

Click to expand...

True, but even guys like Semenko and Laraque were over a point/game in juniors. That's not easy. Some times you just do what they tell you.

I disagree with the poster you were responding to with this, as well - I think, back then anyway, that there were next to zero 'tough guys' that were without skill. Somewhere along the way we lost our way and started drafting the Peter Worrell's of the world, but in the day, they were likely by and large skilled players that evolved into the role.

Click to expand...

Some of these guys-Probert,Tiger Williams,Chris Nilan,Paul Holmgren,Terry O'Reilly,Jonathan were in the 25-30 goal range more than once. None could survive in this league.

No question- if you listen to some of the old enforcer/fighter guys, they were good players but in a smaller league with so many fewer roster spots, many of them had to play that role to stay in the league. Once expansion went crazy, then there was more room for the Worrell's and Belanger types.

Click to expand...

Agreed and it's not limited to tough guys developing into different players in the pros.

I remember Carbonneau saying something like --- it was an adjustment, I mean I scored 70 goals a year in juniors and now in the pros, I'm told not to worry about scoring, but to prevent the other team from doing it.

The issue: Two of the league’s biggest stars were on the receiving end of dangerous plays recently, with Connor McDavid getting slammed into the boards from behind by Hampus Lindholm and Elias Pettersson being hurt on an awkward takedown by Jesperi Kotkaniemi. No penalty was called on either play, and neither team did much of anything in response.
The outrage: If the referees won’t protect the star players, then their teammates better be prepared to do it. It’s time for the players to police the game.
Is it justified: Sure. As readers know, I tend to be kind of old-school when it comes to this stuff. You can bet that if something like those plays had happened to a star player a generation ago, there would have been an immediate line brawl or worse. Nobody would have even hesitated. So sure, criticize the Oilers and Canucks for their lack of a reaction. Lots of fans are doing exactly that this week.
But do it on one condition: You have to be honest about what you’re asking for.
Don’t hide behind euphemisms. Don’t just say you want a “response.” Don’t talk about “sending a message.” Forget about sticking up for a teammate, having someone’s back, or The Code, whatever other phrasing you can come up with.
Be specific. What do you want those teams to do?
Maybe you say that a player should have gone looking for a fight. OK. But Hampus Lindholm is the Ducks’ top defenseman, so I’m guessing he’s not interested in dropping the gloves with a two-goal player like Milan Lucic or Zack Kassian. And 18-year-old Jesperi Kotkaniemi damn sure isn’t looking to fight Erik Gudbranson.
So then what? When Lindholm or Kotkaniemi or whoever else it may be next time declines the invitation to fight and turns to skate away, what do you want to see happen?
Here’s what most fans want: They want to see their guy try to hurt one of the other side’s guys. But what they don’t want to do is actually say that part out loud. So they stick with the euphemisms.
But that’s a cop-out. You’re talking about hurting somebody, or at least trying to. Maybe you’d prefer to see it done in a fair fight or through a clean hit, but those are rare these days. Just asking to fight and being turned down doesn’t change anything. Neither does a dirty look, or some trash talk, or a half-hearted facewash in a scrum. Those things aren’t payback. They’re a performance.
So what kind of “response” are you looking for? Are cheap shots OK? A sucker punch? Does one dirty hit deserve another? If the player skates away, do you go after his star teammate instead?
What happens if the next time the Canucks play the Habs, Gudbranson (or whoever) comes over to challenge Kotkaniemi, gets turned down, and throws a punch or two anyway? What happens if Kotkaniemi stays down, and later we find out he has a broken orbital bone or a serious concussion and his season is over?
Here’s what would happen: A whole lot of fans would react with horror, and say “I never wanted anyone to get hurt.” And no, maybe they didn’t want to see a serious injury – virtually nobody ever does. But there’s no intimidation without the threat of someone getting hurt, and you can’t always control what that looks like. Sometimes, a “response” ends in a black eye and a message delivered. Sometimes it ends in something worse. Canucks fans know that all too well.
I grew up in the ’80s and ’90s, which was a very different time in the NHL. Some of my favorite players back then were guys like Bob Probert and Chris Nilan and John Kordic. They knew how to police the game, and how (and when) to enforce The Code. They also tried to hurt people. Back then, everyone seemed pretty fine with it. Most of us aren’t fine with it today, but maybe you still are.
But if so, say that. Don’t hide behind harmless-sounding buzzwords. And if you’re going to insist on players going out there looking for revenge, don’t feign shock and horror if that “response” you were asking for ends badly. Because eventually, it will.

PRE-DRAFT AWARDS AND HONORS
Sask. AAA All-Star Second Team: 1980-81 (Notre Dame)
Miscellaneous: Rated in The Hockey News draft preview issue as
No. 13 overall prospect and No. 8 WHL prospect for the 1982 NHL draft. ... Missed part of 1980-81 season with broken right wrist, an injury suffered in April 1981. ... Traded by Saskatoon (WHL) to Regina in exchange for Todd Strueby in September 1981. ... Attended Athol Murray College of Notre Dame in Wilcox, Saskatchewan, before entering major junior hockey. ... Tore knee ligaments playing rugby in weeks before 1982 draft, although the injury was unknown to scouts.

During one of Byers callups and after Neely began to blossom it was said the B's thought that Byers would develop into the type of player Neely was in 86-87. I read that Byers had a serious knee injury prior to the draft (unknown to the B's) and also blamed Mike Milbury for forcing him into a fighter role. What a waste.He was a really good prospect coming out of junior - scored 89 points in 58 games his final year in Regina, was selected for Canada's 1984 WJC team, and put up 6 points in 10 games in a callup to Boston in 83-84.He then seemingly --- either by the organization or by himself, got pigeonholed exclusively into the tough guy role. Fighting was obviously his greatest asset, but he wasn't without skills.At the time, he wasn't really a 'goon' prospect at all, and averaged a shade over 150 PIM in his 3 years in the WHL.​

Click to expand...

That's all a bunch of crap. You can say that stuff about almost every tough guy back then. They all scored in junior and just like today not everyone who scores a lot in junior/gets drafted 1st turns out to be a good nhl player. Go look up how guys like Kordic, Nilan, Semenko, Berube, Kocur etc did in junior hockey. How LB couldn't even score in the ahl if he was so skilled?

I also never said he didnt have skill, I said he didnt have the skill to excel in the NHL which is absolutely true. Keeps twisting people's words around tho.

For a more recent example, Tom Sestito scored over 40 goals his last junior. How come he didn't excel on the show, was it because he was forced into a tough guy role lol.

I disagree with the poster you were responding to with this, as well - I think, back then anyway, that there were next to zero 'tough guys' that were without skill. Somewhere along the way we lost our way and started drafting the Peter Worrell's of the world, but in the day, they were likely by and large skilled players that evolved into the role.

Click to expand...

Never said they didn't have skill. Yes, those guys from the 80's were way more skilled then the guys who came into the league in the 90's like Worrell, Tony Twist etc.

Those guys were straight up fighters although Worrell was over a ppg his last junior season.

No question- if you listen to some of the old enforcer/fighter guys, they were good players but in a smaller league with so many fewer roster spots, many of them had to play that role to stay in the league. Once expansion went crazy, then there was more room for the Worrell's and Belanger types.

Some NHLers believe that if you touch the Cup you won't win. Do we need to take them at their word that this is a real cause and effect relationship, or are we allowed to use our own rational thought, empirical evidence and determine our own conclusions?

If you are interested in ceding all of your decisions and give up all your autonomy to others, then go right ahead. That's your choice if you prefer not to think for yourself.

Some NHLers believe that if you touch the Cup you won't win. Do we need to take them at their word that this is a real cause and effect relationship, or are we allowed to use our own rational thought, empirical evidence and determine our own conclusions?

If you are interested in ceding all of your decisions and give up all your autonomy to others, then go right ahead. That's your choice if you prefer not to think for yourself.

But thanks anyway, I think I'll stick with my own brain power.

Click to expand...

Good lord man, get off the high horse already. You are just as entrenched in your opinions here as those on the other side. You can't empirically prove your position, either, by the way. What is more interesting is that this is so important to you that you will keep arguing it into 35 pages

Good lord man, get off the high horse already. You are just as entrenched in your opinions here as those on the other side. You can't empirically prove your position, either, by the way. What is more interesting is that this is so important to you that you will keep arguing it into 35 pages

Click to expand...

1) I'm not the one claiming that there is a supermystical juju power that can't be measured or seen but exists... thus the onus isn't on me to provide empirical evidence.... Yet I've actually done so.
2) I always love posts like this that are like "Hey man ha ha you are arguing in a thread!!!!" always made with no sense of self irony.